Re: Tanks

On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Thomas Barclay of the Clan Barclay wrote:

> ** I work in computers. I trust computers with lives on a daily basis
> because our modern society requires it. I'm fairly certain that at
some
> point, we'll be superflous for many tasks. It might not be by 2185...
> that is debatable, but it will probably happen.

I like high tech thing, but high tech things fail. Is it easier to carry

50 RPVs or a grunt that can fight and also call artillery? Can you 
provide parts for those RPV's on planet? 

> ** It is a matter of balance. If it costs me to send guys to space and
> losing them is politically expensive and costs a lot of retraining and
> replacement bucks, then maybe just maybe one looks at other ways to do
> the same job.

It costs you to send anything into space. We are still talking about 
having people here in combat right? This is because they are still 
flexible and mobile enough to fight. The ai's are great for giving the 
human extra input but your human is the one that fights. 

> ** A lighter version without much armour - call it a powered muscle
> amplifier or exoskeleton.

Even then. You are adding an additional piece for the grunt to take care
of.

> ** Let us further presume that we can develop for example a high speed
> autoloader and feed system like a G-11. Or what about tanks mounting
> HELs? No reloads. Or DFFGs? maybe or maybe not reloads. Mass Drivers?
> You don't load the smaller MDCs by hand, so why the heck would you do
it
> with the bigger ones? I doubt it would work without a viable
autoloader.

The rotating bolt of the G11 was designed to create a different manner
of 
transporting ammo from a vertical magazine to a breech. It makes the 
weapon more compact overall but doesn't reduce the size of the mechanism

needed to transport the ammo. In a tank you are probably going to need 
the ability to transport and select multiple types of ammo. Your 
transport mechanism isn't going to get much smaller unless you can make 
servos that don't need tracks/raceways/bearings to operate. Modern 
Autoloaders are still the same size they were 50 years ago on the 5"
guns 
the USN used. Things have scaled down a little bit but not much. 

A self loading pistol from 1900 isn't much smaller than one of the more 
modern designs (based on caibre size). 100 years hasn't made a huge 
difference in this. 

> ** Well, from my limited experience, tanks don't fire that many rounds
> at one time before 1) dying or 2) ending the fight. But that's mostly
> simulation talking so I'm willing to here other evidence...

Are you kidding me? Yom Kippur mean anything to you?

> ** Dispense with the track. (an option). I think Grav drives would be
> solid state. They are supposedly (according to canon) common. Depot
> maintenance only probably - maybe some simple tuning. maybe not.
> ** Power pack? FGP. If you do that, you change fuel rods every....
five
> years? five months? not enough to worry about in some ways.

What about battle damage? Rough handling? Murphy?

> ** 100% reliable? Wow. You want a gaurantee. I'll offer you that if
you
> convince me your human occupants that it replaced were 100% reliable.
> I'll give you as good or better performance of vision and AI systems
in
> 30-40 years, let alone 200. I may even be able to give you near 100%,
> which might be a LOT better than the humans could manage.

> ** Autoloaders may become irrelevant with HELs, with DFFGs, or with
some
> other weapon types. For others, they are a must. Only for CPR guns are
> they an issue and if we can't solve this in 200 years, then Henry Ford
> should have not bothered with mass production nor Thomas Edison with
> electricity because we're a bunch of clods.

Then, I'd rather have that Loader, stay around and do other things, a 
secondary gunner or something. The Swedish S tank kept the #3 guy around

as an alternate driver/radio operator.

> ** Sure, but I'd rather have a list of 1000 parts, rather than 10,000.
> And if my tank has an MTBF of 10 weeks rather than 10 hours, that'd be
> pretty swell too - you can see the advantage of that given a long
supply
> chain?

Well, you take major components. 

> ** Agree. Or else that FGP must be so much more reliable and powerful
> than the IC that the trip is worth it.

If you can make it that way. I'll bet your grav drive system will have 
other things that need channging then. Field coils perhaps?

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill	  NRA / DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------
-  No more limits on the 2nd amendment. Enforce the extant laws  -
------------------------------------------------------------------